Technology has always shaped the way the retail sector operates and, in the digital age this has led to the ever-increasing take-up of eCommerce platforms to do business over. Not every online store might boast the same turnover as Amazon or eBay but most brick-and-mortar stores now have an online shop if only to showcase their product ranges. What does the future hold for eCommerce and which are the most important trends to be aware of?
Online store – illustrative photo. Image credit: Shoper.pl via Pexels, free license
A huge number of households throughout the Western world now use a smart speaker for more than simply turning on their favorite playlists. Voice-based searches are now more and more important to many businesses that rely on getting the attention of would-be consumers. Voice-based technology is only likely to grow from here on, so optimizing websites with content that will pick up on the right sorts of voice-based inquiries, as opposed to traditionally typed-in keywords, is something that is very much shaping the eCommerce sector today.
2. Digital Marketing
Digital marketing is crucial for the success of eCommerce businesses today but how does technology help? One way is through so-called omnichannel marketing which is about creating a consistent approach so that consumers obtain a unified buying experience. Technology helps simplify how this is achieved so that online stores run by people with little know-how in digital marketing can obtain professional results. Making use of an omnichannel eCommerce platform, for example, will enable users to string their marketing efforts on different channels together, within a single interface, importing products from different types of CMS. This way, ads can be displayed on a wide variety of platforms in one go. This enables companies to create more well-targeted ads with less effort.
3. Artificial Intelligence
AI is now widely used in eCommerce, typically making recommendations based on what customers are likely to be most interested in from the available data. Of course, for this reason, AI and data harvesting go hand-in-hand in the eCommerce world because the results are so much stronger when the two are well aligned. AI isn’t just an automated recommender tool, however. It is increasingly being deployed to deal with straightforward customer service questions and even sales inquiries. If someone is looking for a product to solve a particular problem, then an AI chatbot can often be the best way to understand the need and make an appropriate suggestion. There again, since many post-sales questions are similar in nature, using AI to respond to the most typical ones is often preferred to simply referring customers to the FAQs section. This means, like other eCommerce technology trends, it can be a big cost-saver.
(Luxembourg, 9 August 2024) – Three suspected ringleaders of an international criminal group were indicted yesterday at the Regional Court of Dusseldorf (Germany) for a €93 million VAT fraud, following an investigation by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in Hamburg, code-named Goliath. The three were charged with criminal association and VAT fraud on a large scale.
Two of the defendants remain in pre-trial detention. One of the suspects was arrested during an action carried out by the EPPO on 22 November 2023, targeting the international criminal ring. Another suspect – a Danish citizen who had fled to Africa to escape detention – was arrested in Nairobi (Kenya) and deported on 5 June 2024.
The defendants are believed to be the ringleaders of a criminal organisation, active in the international trade of consumer electronics (mainly AirPods). They are suspected of evading tax by means of a VAT carousel fraud – a complex criminal scheme that takes advantage of EU rules on cross-border transactions between its Member States, as these are exempt from value-added tax – with estimated losses to the EU and national budgets of at least €93 million.
According to the investigation, the suspects established companies in Germany and other EU Member States, as well as in non-EU countries, in order to trade the goods through a fraudulent chain of missing traders – who would vanish without fulfilling their tax obligations. Other companies in the fraudulent chain would subsequently claim VAT reimbursements from the national tax authorities.
If convicted, the defendants face up to 10 years of imprisonment.
This investigation, which counted on the support of Europol, German tax agencies and several national police forces, has stretched across Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland.
Earlier in this investigation, the EPPO seized 1 800 AirPods, as well as cash, two luxury cars, worth a combined €550 000, and a high-end watch, worth €907 000.
All persons concerned are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in the competent German courts of law.
The EPPO is the independent public prosecution office of the European Union. It is responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment crimes against the financial interests of the EU.
In an important step towards promoting religious inclusion and diversity in Spain, the first legally and civilly recognised Bahá’í marriage in the country has taken place. This significant milestone came after the Bahá’í Community of Spain obtained recognition as a religious denomination with Notorious Roots, a procedural path in which they have pioneered, allowing a couple to marry through the Bahá’í ceremony without the need for an additional civil act.
“Having the status of Notorious Roots automatically allows religious communities to give civil validity to marriages celebrated under their doctrine,” explains Ms Clarisa Nieva, representative of the Bahá’í Community of Spain. “This step not only saves time and paperwork for believers, avoiding the need to celebrate both a Bahá’í wedding and a civil wedding for their marriage to be valid in Spain, but also highlights the spiritual and legal significance of their beliefs”.
The Bahá’í wedding ceremony is noted for its simplicity and solemnity. During the ceremony, the couple commit themselves to each other by saying: “We will all, indeed, abide by the will of God“, before at least two witnesses approved by the local Bahá’í Governing Body. Members of this community, when it comes to their weddings, have a great deal of choice in additional details such as readings, music and decorations, which are decided by the bride and groom.
Nura and Gonzalo, the pioneering couple to use this approval, say that they completed the initial procedures in the same way as any other resident in Spain, either by going to the Civil Registry or to a notary. “In our case, we went to the Civil Registry of Valladolid,” they say, “the important thing when starting the process was to mention that we wanted to celebrate a Bahá’í religious wedding, for which we attached the necessary endorsements that accredit our religion to access this new procedure,” they added.
A Step Towards Inclusion
From the Bahá’í Community, Clarisa Nieva expresses her gratitude for this move towards diversity: “From our religious community we are grateful that civil procedures are being opened up to the diversity of beliefs and practices existing in our society”. But she warns of the challenge involved: “It is not an easy path for both sides; both the public administration and the religious communities must build bridges of communication and flexibility in the implementation of these procedures“.
With no “Minister of Worship” per se in the Bahá’í Faith to officiate at the ceremony, Nievas explains that they had to appoint “Delegates with marriage registration capacity” from their communities, so that they could register Bahá’í marriages with the Spanish Civil Registry, thus showing a commendable ability to make reasonable accommodations.
“We are very happy to be the first beneficiaries of this procedure that allows us to make known the importance of marriage in the Bahá’í teachings,” conclude the couple, who already have their family book. “ This union is not just between two people, but between two families. Marriage is considered a strength for the well-being of the community and society of which we are part .”
(…)These two brilliant stars are married in your love, together in the service of your Sacred Threshold, united in the attention of your Cause. Make this marriage like a thread of light from your abundant grace (…).
Abdu’l-Bahá
Its origins, and the impact of the Bahá’í Faith in Spain
The Bahá’í Faith, a religion with more than eight million followers worldwide, focuses on the unity of humanity and contributing to the common good through service activities. They strive to apply the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh (their founder) to their individual and collective lives in order to contribute to the improvement of their environments. It is also noteworthy that the Bahá’í International Community (BIC) , who defend the rights of their followers, in addition to making numerous contributions of knowledge and projects for development and governance, has consultative status with the United Nations, where they are always very active. Most of the community activities focus on promoting the spiritual education of children, youth and families to serve society and contribute to the common good .
The Baha’i, with a history of almost 80 years in Spain, began with Virginia Orbison in 1946 , managing to register for the first time in 1968 , and have obtained the status of Notorious Rootedness in 2023 (BOE No. 230-Sec.III) , which represents not only a recognition of their social and educational contribution, but also a sign of stability.
The community has more than 5,000 members and is present in 15 Autonomous Communities of Spain, with 108 registered entities and 17 places of worship promoting spiritual education and service to society. This recognition of Bahá’í marriage represents a further step towards its integration into Spanish society, celebrating its diversity and bringing a new meaning to religious coexistence in the country.
While Pope Francis calls for global, undivided drug prevention, during the Paris Olympics some ex-priests and some French anti-religious agencies (under investigation by the Court of Accounts), disregarding the common good, criticise the prevention actions of other religions.
In a moving address to the city of Rosario, just over a month before the Paris Olympics, Pope Francis highlighted the relevance of addressing contemporary challenges with holistic and collaborative solutions. He emphasized that achieving peace implies the joint commitment of all social, political and civic entities.
“All social, civil and religious institutions must be united to do what we do best and together create community. We can all collaborate and be part of sporting, educational and community spaces.“
Pope Francis
“On the road to peace, complex and integral answers must be found, with the collaboration of all the institutions that make up the life of a society,” he affirmed.
One of the central themes of the Pope’s message was the need to address not only the supply but also the demand for drugs through prevention and assistance policies. Pope Francis criticised state inaction in this area, stating that “the silence of the state in this matter only naturalises and facilitates the promotion of the consumption and commercialisation of drugs“.
He called for the rehabilitation of politics as a form of charity and promotion of the common good, assuring that “No one of good will can feel excluded or be excluded from the great task of making society a place where all can experience themselves as brothers and sisters“.
The Pope also highlighted the fundamental importance of democracy in the fight against drug trafficking, calling to ensure the autonomy of the judiciary to combat corruption and money laundering: “Every member of the judiciary is responsible for guarding its integrity, which begins with the uprightness of its heart“.
Furthermore, Pope Francis appealed to the social responsibility of the private sector, noting that “There is no good economy without a good businessman. Unfortunately, there is also a bad economy without the complicity of part of the private sector“. He urged entrepreneurs to commit themselves not only to avoid associating with criminal groups, but also to contribute to social welfare.
Finally, he urged all social, civil and religious organisations to collaborate together to create areas of encounter in the most needy communities, stating that “No one is saved alone, even in private neighbourhoods one can find insecurity and the threat of consumption for one’s own children“.
In this situation, it is counterproductive that some former priests, such as Luis Santamaria del Rio who criticises many Christian denominations, as well as French anti-religious agencies such as MIVILUDES, criticise the attempts of other religions to combat drug use. “Instead of offering solutions, these dissenting views seem to forget that the drug problem goes beyond religious differences and needs a united and supportive approach” said a passerby. Pope Francis reiterated his support for those working for justice and community building in difficult contexts, adding that “Charity will be the most explicit proclamation of the Gospel to a society that feels threatened“.
Asked about their drug prevention activities, Ivan Arjona, Scientology’s European representative, told this newspaper that “it seems that distributing 1 million drug prevention booklets during the Paris Olympics, with French, Spanish, Belgian, German, Hungarian, English, American, Italian and other volunteers from all over the world, even if it hurts the vested interests of any heartless person who could call it propaganda, is a good announcement of the Gospel, charity and love for society without looking at political or religious labels“.
In a moving finale, Pope Francis asked for the protection of Our Lady of the Rosary and sent his blessing to all, highlighting the church’s ongoing commitment to helping victims of all kinds of violence. In an increasingly complicated world, his message is a strong reminder that achieving peace and justice requires creativity and commitment from everyone.
Greece is set to commemorate an occasion as it marks 75 years since it became a member of the Council of Europe on 9 August 1949. The Council was established in London on 5 May 1949 by ten founding countries with the goal of advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe.
In honor of this milestone, various events were held in Strasbourg over the weekend to celebrate Greece’s partnership with the Council. Diplomats, historians and scholars came together to discuss Greece’s contributions and its commitment to upholding the values of the Council throughout the years. A proud moment for Greece was when it took over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe‘s Committee of Ministers, from Georgia, in May 2020. During this time, Greece focused on advancing rights, democratic governance and legal collaboration before handing over responsibilities to Germany in November of the same year.
This event provides a chance to reflect on Greece‘s contributions to fulfilling the Council’s objectives in key areas like cultural heritage, migration and social unity. Being one of the members of the Council, Greece has played a significant role in promoting joint initiatives aimed at protecting the freedoms and democratic ideals that are foundational to European solidarity.
As Greece marks 75 years of association with the Council, it highlights the country’s commitment to these principles and its determination to continue working towards collective peace and prosperity, across Europe. The anniversary commemorations not acknowledge a shared history but also reaffirm Greece’s unwavering promise to strive for a future where human rights and democratic principles drive European advancement.
In a rebuke highlighting the European Union’s dedication to humanitarian values and international law the EU High Representative expressed serious concern about the controversial comments made by Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich at the Katif Annual Conference. Minister Smotrich’s remarks suggesting it could be morally justifiable to let two million Gaza civilians go hungry until hostages are released have drawn criticism from the EU for potentially crossing ethical boundaries set by international humanitarian laws.
The EU’s strong denouncement underscores its unwavering opposition to war crimes the intentional starvation of civilians viewed as a blatant violation of human rights and dignity. Minister Smotrichs statement was labeled as “shameful”. Seen as indicative of a broader disregard for international agreements governing conflicts. By endorsing harsh deprivation as a means of political leverage, Smotrich has brought increased global attention to Israels policy choices regarding Gaza.
In a statement, the EU urged the Israeli government to distance itself from Minister Smotrich’s comments and demanded transparency on allegations of torture at Israels Sde Teiman prison. These requests form part of the EU’s plea for Israel to comply with UN Security Council resolutions and follow directives, from the International Court of Justice. The situation for civilians in Gaza is incredibly severe. The EU is once again urging Israel to allow unrestricted humanitarian assistance. This request underscores the need to provide food, medical help and essential supplies to numerous individuals, including children, who are facing conditions similar to famine and disease.
Additionally, the EU has restated its appeal for a ceasefire. It has stressed the importance of ending hostilities not for freeing all hostages unconditionally, but also for significantly boosting humanitarian aid to Gaza. The EU’s unwavering support for peace and aid demonstrates a concern for the welfare of civilians caught in the ongoing conflict.
This development poses a test for Israels leadership as they navigate internal and external pressures amid renewed calls for peace and humanitarian support in one of the world’s longest standing conflicts. With global scrutiny mounting, the EU’s strong stance reaffirms its role, as a protector of human rights and champion of international law.
Grateful thanks to Marcos Soria Roca and Fundación Phi for the permission to use their copyrighted photos.
KingNewsWire – The Transcendence International Interreligious Forum (FIIT) has achieved a major milestone in its mission to foster interfaith dialogue and spiritual understanding during its first Symposium of reflection and spirituality, held at the Phi Campus, a nature-friendly and sustainable environment that became a space for sharing ideas. The conference brought together representatives of various religious traditions to share their views on faith, coexistence and the role of spirituality in everyday life.
The president of the FIIT and PHI Foundation, H.E. Pujya Swami Rameshwarananda Giri Maharaj, was the host and organiser of this meetings which were attended by leaders and representatives of different religious traditions present in Spain. Among the members of the FIIT were the Carmelite Sisters of Charity of Vedruna, Gracia Gil and Rosa Ortí from Catholic Christianity, as well as Amparo Navarro from the Jesuit Migrant Service. Isaac Sananes participated for Judaism; Pandit Krishna Kripa Dasa (who also presented his latest book), Swamini Dayananda Giri, and Swami Rameshwarananda himself attended for Hinduism; and Elisabeth Gayán (for Brahma Kumaris).
In addition, a representative of Islam, Shaykh Mansur Mota participated virtually. Also present were representatives of the traditions that have recently joined the Transcendence Forum this year. Representing Protestantism was Francisco Javier Piquer; Clarisa Nieva and José Toribio represented the Baha’i Faith; Armando Lozano represented the Unification Church; and from the Church of Scientology, Ivan Arjona-Pelado was present.
Within this context, Ivan Arjona, who is Scientology’s Representative to the European Union and the United Nations, had the opportunity, as did the other participants, to give a more detailed insight into the fundamentals of his faith. The recent inclusion of Ivan Arjona as a member of the Transcendence Forum is a clear indicator of Transcendence’s and Scientology’s commitment to actively engage in interfaith dialogue, increasing the number of interfaith forums where Scientologists participate worldwide. Transcendence forum aims to create a space where diverse faiths can coexist and dialogue to promote a sense of unity and collaboration. During the conference, Arjona gave a lecture focusing on the concept of freedom, a fundamental principle in Scientology religious doctrine.
Drawing on the Creed of the Church of Scientology and the “Prayer for Total Freedom” written by L. Ron Hubbard, Arjona highlighted the relevance of both individual freedom and personal responsibility in the individual spiritual journey. Arjona’s presentation not only illuminated Scientology’s perspective on freedom, but also gave attendees the opportunity to reflect on how these concepts apply to their own beliefs, as each tradition was able to express its vision of freedom according to their scriptures.
This openness to dialogue provided by Campus Phi fostered an atmosphere where participants felt comfortable sharing their personal experiences, thus enriching the exchange and promoting a climate of respect and curiosity. Arjona was able to explain the tenets of his religion in a clear and understandable way, which was instrumental in creating this atmosphere, turning the discussions into a truly intercultural dialogue that broke down walls and myths.
In one of the highlights of the conference, Arjona participated in a session dedicated to religious readings and personal reflection. There he had the opportunity to read excerpts from “The Way to Happiness“, a book that presents a moral code based on reason and logic. He specifically selected the chapters “Respect the religious beliefs of others” and “Flourish and prosper“, which not only reflect Scientology values, but also set out a framework for peaceful coexistence between different religions.
These meetings provided a platform for attendees to delve into the philosophy of various religious traditions and explore how these principles could be applied in their own lives. The participants, coming from different religious traditions such as different branches of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Baha’i and Scientology, demonstrated a genuine interest in understanding the basis of each other’s faiths directly from their sources.
“Interreligious dialogue goes beyond the exchange about one’s beliefs; it also seeks to identify common ground that can serve as a basis for collaboration in social and community initiatives,” said Iván Arjona-Pelado.
In an increasingly turbulent world, moments dedicated to reflection and spirituality are not only an opportunity to explore differences, but have also proven to be fertile ground for fostering unity and hope for a future where interfaith collaboration is common. These first meetings of the Transcendence Forum “have been a success for all participants and primarily due to the team of the Fundación Phi and the monastic order of the Vedantic Centre that accompanied us at all times,” said Arjona, “establishing a more solid foundation for a more extensive and relevant dialogue between diverse faiths”.
Ukrainian businesses report unfounded repressions during Russia’s war on Ukraine
August 2024
In July 2024, owners and top managers of Ukrainian enterprises gathered again at a roundtable in Kyiv to declare that not a single high-profile case of corruption pressure on business, monitored by the public movement “Manifesto 42,” has been transferred to court with an indictment.
Officials continue to use criminal proceedings to extort bribes and property
“Manifesto 42” is a non-governmental public movement of Ukrainian businessmen created in June 2023 to protect their enterprises against the arbitrariness of officials, judges, and special services. The name refers to Article 42 of the Constitution of Ukraine about the right to entrepreneurial activity.
Manifesto 42
The consolidated protest of prominent representatives of Ukrainian business emerged in the spring of 2023 in response to the actions of certain government representatives.
In November 2022, several large enterprises were forcibly taken from their owners, including shareholders without dominant influence (minority shareholders).
The most significant and valuable companies among them are “Ukrnafta” and “Ukrtatnafta.” However, smaller companies and medium-sized businesses are also under pressure.
Ukrnafta is the main oil and gas producing company in Ukraine, producing 86% of oil, 28% of gas condensate and 16% of gas (from fossil hydrocarbons).
At the same time, the manufacturer of rubber products and tactical first aid kits for the army, Kievguma, which cannot be considered a leader in terms of business size, also encountered problems with law enforcement agencies.
The Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) conducted a series of searches in the company’s offices, arrested management leaders and publicly accused the company of supplying first aid kits to the enemy – Russia.
This is a typical charge when attempting to take over a business, as it appeals to public opinion. The general director of Kievguma, Andrii Ostrogrud, who joined the Manifesto 42 movement, answered that competitors offered him to divide the market in order to avoid healthy competition and when he refused, with the help of law enforcement officers, they began to destroy the reputation of his company.
In 2022-2023, Dmytro Firtash, a gas business owner residing in Austria since 2014, whose extradition Washington has been seeking for many years, was deprived of his assets in Ukraine.
His gas distribution companies were nationalised: corporate rights were confiscated at the request of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), and the enterprises themselves were transferred to the management of the state Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA).
The High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC), considered the most impartial institution and recently created to handle corruption cases, lifted the arrest on the company’s shares.
However, Firtash did not regain his property. His assets were transferred under the control of the state company “Naftogaz.”
Dmytro Firtash
Since the beginning of 2023, troubling processes for businesses have continued and expanded
News about searches and criminal cases against well-known businessmen have become frequent, with many left bewildered by the claims made against them.
Oleksandr Kosovan, the founder of the IT company MacPaw, whose programs are installed on one out of every five Mac computers, invested over 25 million euros in a recreation centre for his company’s employees and faced searches due to unauthorised shoreline expansion on the plot where the wellness complex is being built.
The Bureau of Economic Security (BES), an agency created as a result of reforms to replace the tax police, initiated a case against the company “M-Kino,” which owns the “Multiplex” cinema chain, for tax evasion.
A sudden raid by the SSU and National Police on the office of the developer ImproveIT Solutions almost disrupted the company’s project for an important U.S. client. Investigators came under the pretext of a case involving the “creation and distribution of pornography,” seizing five laptops. Six days later, the equipment was returned without any explanation.
These are just a few examples of the large number of incidents that occurred with Ukrainian business at the end of 2022 – beginning of 2023. The two most high-profile events in the spring of 2023 concerned the activation of very old criminal cases to achieve dubious goals.
In April last year, the Pechersk Court of Kyiv seized the corporate rights of the gas production company “Ukrnaftoburinnya” as material evidence in a case that was initiated almost 10 years ago. Five days later, these rights were transferred to the management of ARMA, effectively taking the company away from its owners and forcibly nationalising it.
Another criminal case, also initiated 10 years ago around land privatisation, led to searches at the home of Igor Mazepa, the founder of the investment company Concorde Capital, who is popular among business circles and journalists. Mazepa called on the business community to organise self-protection against the arbitrariness of officials and judges. He was supported by other entrepreneurs, leading to the creation of “Manifesto 42.”
Ihor Mazepa in Pechersk Court of Kyiv
Mazepa’s initiative and that of his like-minded supporters led to a public discussion of the situation. Articles appeared in the press, where journalists sought answers to why the number of business complaints about repression had increased several times.
One of the most in-depth investigations was published in May 2023 in the Ukrainian Forbes under the eloquent title “Taxes, the ubiquitous Tatarov, the Russian trace. Businessmen complain that security forces are increasing pressure. There are at least five reasons for this and only one piece of advice.”
The article is the first to formulate an explanation and to name an official who is considered the “general producer” of pressure on business.
“Four interlocutors from the financial, economic and anti-corruption committees of the Verkhovna Rada, as well as the OP (Office of the President), believe that the pressure on business is directly or indirectly related to the fact that almost all law enforcement agencies came under the influence of the President’s Office, namely the deputy head of the OP, Oleh Tatarov.
Oleh Tatarov, Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine
“Since the times of the Revolution of Dignity, there has been no instance where all law enforcement agencies were under the control of one person,” says one interlocutor in the Verkhovna Rada, asking not to be named in this article.
“It is difficult to oppose such a person.”
Another interlocutor notes that this situation has led to the destruction of the system of checks and balances, saying that “Previously, there was competition between law enforcement agencies, and they were afraid of each other.”
“A businessman could complain about the SSU to the police. Now there’s no one to complain to – they’re all in the same harness.”
The publication garnered huge resonance and led to a meeting between business representatives and the President in June 2023
The business community hoped for the dismissal of Tatarov or at least his removal from positions of influence.
However, instead, in July 2023, Tatarov began participating in a coordination platform for resolving problematic issues between business and law enforcement agencies, signalling the retention of his dominant role.
On January 19, 2024, the initiator of the “Manifesto 42” movement, Mazepa, was arrested without a court decision on his way to the Davos Forum.
The arrest was carried out by employees of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and the National Police – law enforcement agencies over which Tatarov has significant influence.
Why are Ukrainian businesses afraid of Tatarov?
Deputy head of the Office of the President (OP) Oleh Tatarov is disliked by business, anti-corruption activists and the press, since he personifies the corrupt pro-Russian government that Ukrainians got rid of during the Revolution of Dignity in 2014.
The democratic uprising in Ukraine was an anti-Russian, pro-European action triggered by the refusal of the authorities, led by the leader of the Party of Regions, President Viktor Yanukovych, to sign an Association Agreement with the EU. Russia was against this agreement.
At the end of November 2013, the police beat protesting students. This sparked a nationwide uprising, resulting in Yanukovych fleeing to Russia and the election victory of pro-European politicians in Ukraine.
From 2011 to 2014, Tatarov was the deputy head of the investigative department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and publicly justified the actions of the authorities and police. Later, as a lawyer, he defended police officers involved in the shootings of demonstrators.
Tatarov (left) and the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs during the Yanukovych era, Vitaliy Zakharchenko (center) in December 2013
He established his network of agents even before actor Volodymyr Zelensky won the presidential elections in 2019. Journalists found information about 59 people who defended their scientific dissertations with Tatarov’s participation between 2014 and 2020, when he was not yet working for the government. Among them were judges, police officers, and prosecutors considered loyal to him.
Tatarov’s personality was a discordant element with the programmatic theses of the new president, who shortly after his election signed a law on business protection, promised to bring Ukraine into the TOP-10 of the World Bank’s ease of doing business ranking within 3-4 years, and declared that “the State is a service agency creating conditions for business.”
Presumably, in 2020, the young, inexperienced, and romantically inclined government team needed a communicator with the old part of the official law enforcement and judicial system from which they could not quickly get rid of. The choice fell on Tatarov. Subsequently he used the transformation of power caused by Russia’s invasion to strengthen his positions.
Recently, Reuters published a major article on how, after his election, Zelensky tried to introduce the most liberal order in Ukraine, and now he is a president under the constraints of democracy caused by martial law.
Most of Forbes’ interlocutors, close to the Presidential Office and the economic wing of the government, confirm that Zelensky, deeply engaged in diplomacy and the situation on the front line, has no time and energy for the economy and business problems.
Tatarov demonstrated his growing influence two months after the war began
In April 2022, the criminal case initiated against him in 2020 by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), an independent body created after the Revolution of Dignity, was closed.
NABU only managed to arrest Artem Shylo, who until recently headed the SSU department for investigating cases against businesses. Anti-corruption activists call him Tatarov’s main trusted person and the curator of ARMA, where nationalised assets are transferred for management.
It is also worth mentioning the conflict between Tatarov and NABU. The successful work of this anti-corruption body is one of the most important requirements of Ukraine’s Western partners. However, as Tatarov has stated, “NABU is not a Ukrainian story.”
Oleksii Sukhachov, Director of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI)
Tatarov’s orbit includes the head of the SBI (State Bureau of Investigation of Ukraine), Oleksiy Sukhachov. Their connection is so close and specific that it extends beyond official matters – Sukhachov, along with Tatarov and four other members of the selection committee for the head of the SBI, even co-authored and reviewed books.
It is possible that Tatarov also had a hand in the career of the current head of the SSU, Vasyl Maliuk. After Maliuk was dismissed from his position as the first deputy head of the SBU and head of the anti-corruption department in 2021, Tatarov facilitated his appointment as deputy minister of internal affairs.
Another ally of Tatarov is Rostyslav Shurma, the deputy head of the OP overseeing the economic bloc. These two are the only former members of Yanukovych’s notorious Party of Regions among all the employees of the Presidential Office.
The relationship between Tatarov and Shurma was recently solidified by a court decision. In March 2024, Judge Svitlana Shaputko of the Pechersk Court, who defended her dissertation with Tatarov’s help in 2018, dismissed the case against Shurma for violating conflict of interest prevention requirements, as accused by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention.
They appeared together at the business meeting in July 2023, crushing the hopes of “Manifesto 42” participants to convey the need for personnel changes to the President.
Their relationship is potentially very dangerous for business.
Tatarov has the leverage to organise the illegal seizure of private property through the courts and apply pressure from the security services. Shurma coordinates the appointment of state-controlled managers to positions managing confiscated assets.
Shurma’s desire to see his protégé lead the largest oil production and refining holding, consisting of “Ukrnafta” and “Ukrtatnafta,” may have led to the dramatic consequences for shareholders unjustifiably deprived of property rights and, more importantly, to damage to the state’s interests.
Click on the diagram below to have the full picture in a big window
Tatarov’s network
The story of “Ukrnafta” and “Ukrnaftoburinnya” has become a symbol of lawlessness
During the Davos Forum-2023, Shurma provided an explanation for why the authorities seized shares from private owners of “Ukrnafta,” including non-residents, in November 2022.
According to him, it was due to the company’s management refusing to supply petroleum products to the Ukrainian army.
At the same time, the former chairman of the board of “Ukrnafta,” Oleh Hez, called this information unreliable.
“Ukrnafta” is an oil production company; it does not produce petroleum products but only sells the extracted oil.
“Ukrnafta” has never had obligations to supply fuel for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Despite the lack of obligations, since the Russian invasion, the then-management of “Ukrnafta” systematically provided assistance to military units and territorial defence units, refuelling military equipment at “Ukrnafta” gas stations for free.
The former head of the supervisory board of “Ukrnafta,” Mykola Havrylenko, was frankly surprised by this interpretation.
“All I can say is that I am unaware of any unmet obligations for the supply of petroleum products by ‘Ukrnafta.’ If such issues ever arose, they would have been brought up in meetings, and if not – I have no other information. What volumes are being discussed, and at what times… This is news to me,” he commented on the issue for the media.
The term “nationalisation” used by Shurma in the context of “Ukrnafta” sounds incorrect, as until November 2022, the controlling stake (51%) was already owned by the Ukrainian state through NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine.”
Nothing prevented the state, as the main shareholder, from changing the company’s management or deciding to direct all revenues to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Instead, under the slogans of the need to “punish” “Ukrnafta” for not supplying fuel to the army, the Law of Ukraine “On the Transfer, Forced Alienation, or Exclusion of Property under the Legal Regime of Martial or State of Emergency” was used, to allow the confiscation of property from citizens and enterprises during wartime until its end.
Subsequently, the assets must be returned to the owners, or if this is impossible, their market value must be compensated.
According to the provisions of this law, only property necessary for military needs can be confiscated. However, in this case, it was not petroleum products (which, as we recall, “Ukrnafta” did not produce) that were confiscated, but 49% of the shares of “Ukrnafta” minority shareholders, signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The seizure of private foreign investors’ shares allegedly for military needs appears strange. At the same time, a new director, Serhiy Koretsky, was appointed, fully controlled and accountable to the Deputy Head of the Presidential Office, Shurma.
There were no complaints about the performance of the management of “Ukrnafta,” which was unjustifiably dismissed in November 2022. Former Deputy Minister of Finance of Ukraine, Olena Makieieva, stated in an interview, “The Supervisory Board exercised appropriate oversight of the board’s activities, the audit committee(under the Supervisory Board of ‘Ukrnafta’ – ed.)had no complaints about the work of the head of the company and board members.”
One of the authors of the Ukrainian corporate law reform aimed at converging with the best European practices, Serhiy Boytsun, declared in March 2023 that the new Supervisory Board of “Ukrnafta” was illegitimate since it was formed in violation of the law on joint-stock companies.
Foto- Ukrnafta’s Head Office
This also applies to the company’s appointed head, Koretsky, as he was appointed by an illegitimate Supervisory Board.
Boytsun’s remark about the quality of corporate governance in “Ukrnafta” after the so-called “nationalisation” is noteworthy: “There can be no talk of corporate governance standards since the Supervisory Board consists solely of representatives of the shareholder (Ministry of Defence) and acts solely as silent signatories.”
Quality corporate governance in strategically important companies is a mechanism that should balance interests in a civilised manner.
It is obvious that after November 2022, such a statement is impossible regarding “Ukrnafta.”
“You don’t need to be an insider to understand that there is now manual control,” Boytsun asserted. From the perspective of corporate law, in his opinion, the decision to seize “Ukrnafta” shares from minority shareholders is deeply flawed.
Under full state control, “Ukrnafta” became the subject of corruption and management scandals. Instead of providing free fuel to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (the basis for applying the “military law”), the new company management sued its curator, the Ministry of Defense, to expedite the receipt of more money.
In violation of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 178 of 02.03.2022, according to which operations for the supply of petroleum products to the army, National Guard, and other security structures during the war are subject to a zero VAT rate, “Ukrnafta” included a 7% VAT rate in the contract, and then, after its change, 20%.
Through this manipulation, it received an additional 350 million UAH (7.8 million euros).
To force the Ministry of Defense to pay even more money, the company went to court. This outraged a member of the Ukrainian parliament, the first deputy head of the parliamentary energy committee, Oleksiy Kucherenko, who sent a parliamentary inquiry to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
The situation is even worse at the oil and gas company “Ukrnaftoburinnya” (UNB). This was the second-largest gas producer in Ukraine among private companies. Now it has stopped operating altogether, even though Ukraine urgently needs its own energy resources and budget revenues from taxes during the war.
In the spring of 2023, the company was taken away from private owners for no apparent reason and transferred under the control of Koretsky. The reason for the confiscation was a criminal case related to a licence to develop the Sakhalin field in the Kharkov region, where Russian troops are trying to break through.
Over the course of a few days in April 2023, the Pechersky Court of Kyiv issued three court decisions. The company’s shares, seized as evidence in a criminal case, were transferred to ARMA, which, in turn, transferred them to the management of Ukrnafta. This decision was made by judge Vita Bortnitskaya, who once defended her dissertation with the help of Tatarov.
To legalise the actions of transferring “Ukrnaftoburinnya” under the management of “Ukrnafta,” it was necessary to obtain a document from the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) stating that such a merger did not result in market monopolisation.
This document was obtained, but with apparent signs of procedural and legal violations. In the future, it could become the subject of a criminal or anti-corruption case.
However, even these attempts at falsification proved pointless. What was supposedly being avoided by transferring the company to state management still happened.
The problematic licence, which was the reason for seizing “Ukrnaftoburinnya” from its owners, was annulled by the court. The company halted production at Sakhalinsk, at a time when Ukraine critically lacks energy resources.
Foto – Oil production in Ukraine
Deputy Kucherenko asked the ARMA management why, many months after the licence was revoked on November 28, 2023, the gas production company’s work had not resumed.
He also asked Koretsky whether the state manager of Ukrnaftoburinni, Oleg Malchik, was present at the court hearing on November 28, 2023. He further questioned the fact that instead of attending the court hearing about the fate of his company, Malchik went abroad, despite the fact that Ukrainian men aged 18 to 60 are prohibited from freely leaving the country during the war.
The main mystery is why ARMA, together with “Ukrnafta,” from August to November 2023, before the court’s decision to revoke the licence, did not appeal to the Cabinet of Ministers and the state geological service to withdraw the state regulator’s lawsuit?
Perhaps the true goal of the nationalisation of “Ukrnaftoburinnya” was not to save the enterprise but to destroy it, so that some company close to officials could profit from the field’s development?
The climax of absurdity from the perspective of state interests is the seizure of regional gas distribution companies from businessman Firtash into state ownership.
The payment level for gas by the population in Ukraine was already quite low before the full-scale war.
Following the sharp decline in income after the full-scale invasion, it fell to an extremely low level. Under the private owner (Firtash), the losses were borne by him, but after nationalisation, they became an additional burden on the state budget of Ukraine, which had a deficit of 18.6% of GDP in 2022 and 20.6% of GDP in 2023.
The budget deficit for 2024 is planned at 1.57 trillion UAH, but on July 15, the head of the parliamentary budget committee, Roksolana Pidlasa, announced that th budget still lacked 0.4-0.5 trillion UAH this year. At this time, the unpaid gas bills of impoverished Ukrainians are being covered by the state budget instead of billionaire Firtash.
It is likely that the initiators of the seizure of his gas distribution companies were guided by personal enrichment – schemes for gas misappropriation and theft are popular – rather than by state interests.
Will Ukraine be able to raise billions for its reconstruction if it cannot guarantee property rights to investors?
The July statement by the participants of “Manifesto 42” exudes pessimism. Nearly 2.5 years after Russia’s attack on Ukraine, Ukrainian businesses do not complain about the hardships of war and the severe destruction of the energy system that complicates their work.
They ask the authorities not to violate their constitutional rights to business and not to seize their property under the pretext of wartime needs.
Ukraine is desperately and heroically resisting Russian aggression. Each Russian missile strike leads to severe destruction and casualties in various cities across the country.
The destruction of the central children’s hospital in the capital, Kyiv, where Ukrainian children were being saved from cancer and other severe diseases, shocked the world. In a few hours, Ukrainian businesses raised tens of millions of euros to rebuild the clinic.
Not a single businessman who legally works in Ukraine, who financially and technically supports the army in countering Russian aggression, and who complains about the inconveniences associated with logistics issues, the partial occupation of Ukrainian territories and the mobilisation of the male population, can be completely sure that he will not face unfounded claims from corrupt judicial and law enforcement agencies and will not lose its business based on unfounded future accusations.
Tatarov Remains a Very Intimidating Figure
Investigative journalists and anti-corruption activists who consistently criticise Tatarov and claim that his actions delay Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the EU face criminal charges.
This threat extends even to those who have mobilised into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), as was stated by Daria Kaleniuk, Executive Director of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, in the corridors of the discussion “A Decade of Transformation: Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption in Ukraine with EU Support.”
She referred specifically to the well-known activist Vitaliy Shabunin.
According to estimates by the UN, World Bank, and European Commission, rebuilding Ukraine after the war’s destruction will require 480 billion euros over the next 10 years.
At the “Reconstruction of Ukraine 2024” conference in Berlin in June 2024, Ukrainian authorities presented numerous projects vying for private investments from foreign investors. However, the risks of investment and property loss were not addressed.
The business world remains observant and cautious
Co-owner of the IT company Genesis, Volodymyr Mnogoletniy, stated in an interview with Forbes that in the two years of war, he had not seen a single major foreign investor willing to invest in Ukraine.
The primary investors and job creators in the country are Ukrainian enterprises, which are being oppressed by high-ranking officials.
Currently, insurance is only available against losses caused by the war. However, there is no insurance against property seizures by officials who were members of Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party, and now, during the war, have received unlimited power by occupying key leadership positions in the Office of Zelensky, a president who probably doesn’t even suspect the critical character of the situation that his inner circle has created.
(*) Alexander Stern
Analyst and journalist, born in 1973. He graduated from Riga Technical University in 1995. Until 2016, he worked as an analyst at ABLV Bank, one of the largest private banks in the Baltic States, headquartered in Riga (Latvia) with representative offices abroad from 1993 to 2018. Afterwards, he worked in France as a freelance investigation journalist. Consultant on business mergers and acquisitions.
On the occasion of the World Day against Trafficking in Persons, the Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) joins the Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Trafficking in Human Beings (ICAT) in calling for concerted measures to reduce the vulnerability of children to trafficking, provide specialised assistance to child victims, and end the impunity of traffickers.
Referring to the “Call for accelerated action by 2025 to prevent and end child trafficking”, ICAT’s statement stresses that children account for one third of the known trafficking victims globally suggesting that existing initiatives to address and eradicate child trafficking are insufficient to drive progress. It is crucial to integrate the prevention of child trafficking and the protection and care of victims, into frameworks, for child welfare. Moreover in situations of conflict and crisis these actions should be incorporated into coordination structures and interventions for unaccompanied and separated minors.
“A child-sensitive approach is reflected throughout the Council of Europe’s Anti-Trafficking Convention, which requires States Parties to take specific measures to protect children and reduce their vulnerability to trafficking, in particular by creating a protective environment for them,” said Helga Gayer, President of GRETA. “Children who are victims of trafficking are frequently treated as offenders and punished for crimes they were forced to commit, such as theft or drug-related offences. States must live up to their legal obligations relating to the rights of victims of trafficking. This includes improving the proactive identification of child victims of trafficking, including in the online environment, and strengthening multi-disciplinary co-operation to ensure the respect of the best interests of the child at all stages,” stressed GRETA’s President.
GRETA’s monitoring of the Convention has paid particular attention to the development of prevention measures targeting children in the most vulnerable situations, such as children whose births have not been registered, children in street situations, children placed in or leaving institutions, children from disadvantaged communities, unaccompanied and separated children and asylum-seeking children. GRETA has stressed the urgent need for increasing the measures to prevent online recruitment of children, including by co-operating with Internet service providers and raising the awareness of children, parents and education professionals of the risk of recruitment of children through the Internet.
GRETA calls upon State Parties to the Convention to live up to their legal obligations relating to the rights and treatment of child victims of trafficking, which includes their proactive identification and referral to specialised assistance, the prompt appointment of legal guardians to unaccompanied children, and full respect of the non-punishment provision.
The stamp of the truly religious spirit and, in particular, of the folk-Russian religious genius Fr. Florensky sees “not in the cutting off, but in the transformation of the fullness of being” (p. 772), and we cannot but agree with the correctness of the statement of the main religious task here. However, has this task been fully thought out by the esteemed author? Is he clearly aware of all the requirements arising from it? Here I have enough substantial doubts.
This spiritual transformation, which is destined to become bodily in the future age, must encompass the whole nature of man: it must begin in the heart – the center of his spiritual life, and from there spread to the entire periphery. And from this point of view, I decide to put Fr. Florensky a question arising from reading his book. Human nature, in addition to the heart and body, which are about to be resurrected, also belongs to the human mind. Is he also subject to transformation or cutting down? Does Fr. Florensky in the transformation of the human mind, does he recognize in this transformation as a necessary moral task, or does he simply think that the mind must be cut off, like the seductive “right eye”, so that “man” himself can be saved; and is it possible to speak of the salvation of the “whole man”, in case his mind is destined to remain “in the outer darkness” until the end, even if it is only within the limits of this, earthly life. However, this transformation must begin and be foretold here. Must the human mind take an active part in this foretaste, or is it required merely to withdraw from all activity, from that which is its necessary law?
To put these questions to a man whose book is, in any case, a remarkable mental feat seems odd. Nevertheless, I am obliged to set them down: therefore because, paradoxical as it may seem, a writer who has labored so much and so fruitfully at the solution of the task of transforming the mind, does not clearly enough realize what that task consists in. concludes.
In its earthly reality, the human mind suffers from that distressing disorder and that division which are the common stamp of all sinful life; this, as we have already seen, is shown with great brightness and clarity by Fr. Florensky in his chapter on doubt; however, if this is so, then the transformation of the mind must be expressed precisely in the healing of this sinful decay and of this division, in the restoration of its inner integrity in the unity of the Truth. Is this what we see with Fr. Florensky? Unfortunately, it is at this point that the truth, which is generally so clearly realized by him, suddenly turns out to be obscured, literally hidden by a cloud. Instead of a clear solution to the question posed, in his book we find only vague and contradictory answers, like an unresolved struggle of opposing aspirations. This is revealed in his doctrine of antinomianism. Here, in his thought, two not only irreconcilable, but irreconcilable situations collide. On the one hand, antinomianism – internal contradiction – is a property of the sinful state of our reason. From this point of view, it is necessary to seek a reconciliation, a synthesis of contradictory principles – a gracious illumination of the mind, in which the contradictions are removed, although “… not rationally, but in a super-rational way” (pp. 159-160).
On the other hand, in a row of pages of the same book, it is asserted that truth itself is antinomian (that is, “truth” with a lowercase letter, not a capital letter – the truth about Truth), that true religious dogma is antinomian; contradiction constitutes the necessary seal of the true in general. “Truth itself is an antinomy and cannot but be so” (pp. 147, 153).
And accordingly our author wavers between two radically different attitudes to human thought.
On the one hand, it must enter the mind of truth, become whole, like the God-bearing minds of the ascetics (p. 159).
On the other hand, it must be silenced, i.e. simply cut off as fundamentally contradictory and essentially antinomian – the very pursuit of “reasonable faith” is the beginning of “diabolical pride” (p. 65).
Can it be affirmed at the same time that as sin is antinomian, so that truth is antinomian? Does this not mean, in simpler language, that truth is sinful, or that truth itself is sin?
They may, of course, object to me that here we have an “antinomy for the sake of antinomy,” that is, a necessary contradiction. And that is why we must carefully look at the contradictory theses of Fr. Florensky: do we really have in them an objectively necessary antinomy, or just a subjective contradiction of the individual mind?
The thesis of Fr. Florenski, that the antinomies of our reason are in themselves a property of his sinful state, must be recognized as entirely true. “Looked at from the angle of dogmatics,” he says, “antinomies are inevitable.” Since sin exists (and in its recognition is the first half of faith), then our whole being, as well as the whole world, are broken” (p. 159). “There, in heaven, is the one Truth; in our case – many fragments of it, which are not congruent with each other. In the history of the flat and boring (?!) thinking of the “new philosophy”, Kant had the audacity to utter the great word “antinomy”, which violated the decorum of the supposed unity. Even for that alone he would deserve eternal glory. There is no need in case his own antinomies fail – the work is in the experience of antinomies’ (p. 159).
By not sharing this sharp review of Fr. Florensky on the new philosophy, I think that the diagnosis of the disease of human reason was made by him perfectly correctly. From this point of view, however, it would seem that precisely these internal contradictions – this antinomy, represent an obstacle to our thought in achieving the Truth, separate it from God. To my great surprise, however, the antithesis of Fr. Florensky says just the opposite. Truth itself constitutes an antinomy: “only the antinomy can be believed; and every judgment which is non-antinomial is either simply recognized or simply rejected by reason, since it does not exceed the limits of its egoistic individuality” (p. 147). According to the thought of Fr. Florenski, the very salvation of dogma is determined by its antinomianity, thanks to which it can be a reference point for reason. It is with dogma that our salvation begins, because only dogma, as antinomian, “does not narrow our freedom and gives full scope to benevolent faith or malicious unbelief” (p. 148).
To affirm that antinomianism is the stamp of the sinful division of our reason, and at the same time to reason that it is precisely in it that the power that saves us is contained, means falling into a contradiction which is not at all rooted in the essence of the matter and has no character of objective necessity, but should be fully recognized as the fault of Fr. Florensky. Precisely on the question of the “antinomian” of the Revelation, we have the quite unequivocal answer of St. Ap. Paul: “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom I and Silas and Timothy preached among you, was not ‘yes’ and ‘no’, but in Him was ‘yes’, because all the promises of God in Him are ‘yes’, and in Him “amen,” to the glory of God through us” (2 Cor. 1:19-20). How are we to reconcile with this text our author’s assertion that the mysteries of religion “… cannot be put into words in any other way than in the form of a contradiction, which is both yes and no” (p. 158)? I draw attention to the extreme community of this situation. Well, if it is really true that every secret of religion is both yes and no, then we must recognize as equally true that there is a God, and that He is not, and that Christ is risen, and that He was not risen at all. On Fr. Florensky, in any case, has to introduce some limitation in his statement and admit that not all, but only some religious secrets are antinomian, i.e. contradictory in form. But even such an understanding of “antinomianism” does not stand up to criticism.
It asks, above all, what is inherently contradictory or antinomian: the dogma itself, or our imperfect understanding of the dogma? On this matter, the thought of Fr. Florensky hesitates and splits. On the one hand, he affirms that in the Tri-Ray light revealed by Christ and reflected in the righteous, “… the contradiction of this age is overcome by love and glory”, and, on the other hand, for him, the contradiction is “a mystery of the soul, mystery of prayer and love”. “The whole church service, especially the canons and sticharies, is overflowing with this ever-boiling wit of antithetical juxtapositions and antinomian assertions” (p. 158). Moreover, in the book in question there is a whole table of dogmatic antinomies. However, it is precisely from this table that it becomes clear what the main error of the respected author is.
He simply uses the words “antinomy” and “antinomianity” in two different senses. As a characteristic of the sinful state, antinomy always means contradiction – in relation to reason from this point of view, antinomianism denotes internal contradiction. When the author talks about the “antinomian nature of the dogma” or of the church chants, this should mostly be understood in the sense that the dogma is a kind of union of the world’s opposites (coincidentia oppositorum).
It is not particularly difficult to be convinced that precisely this mixing of the contradictory and the opposite is the error in a whole series of examples of “dogmatic antinomies” in Fr. Florensky. In fact, we have no antinomies in them at all.
For example, despite the respected author, the dogma of the Holy Trinity is not at all antinomian, since there is no internal contradiction in it. There would be an antinomy here if we were stating contradictory predicates about the same subject in the same relation. If, for example, the Church taught that God is one in essence and at the same time not one but triune in essence: this would be a real antinomy. In church dogma, however, “unity” refers to the essence, “trinity” – to the Persons, which from the point of view of the Church are not the same. It is clear that there is no contradiction, that is, no antinomy here: “yes” and “no” refer to the same thing.[9]
The dogma of the mutual relationship of the two natures in Jesus Christ is also non-antinomic. There would be an antinomy here if the Church claimed at the same time both the separation and the inseparability of the two natures; and their fusion and non-fusion. But in the doctrine of “inseparability and non-fusion” of the two natures there is no internal contradiction and, therefore, no antinomy – because logically the concepts of inseparability and non-fusion are not at all mutually exclusive, so here we have opposites (opposita), not contradictory (contraria) concepts.
With these examples, it is possible to clarify not only the error in the book under consideration, but also the essence of the correct understanding of antinomy and antinomianism. We have already convinced ourselves that these dogmas are not in themselves antinomies, but to the flat mind they inevitably become antinomies. When gross human understanding makes the three Persons into three Gods, the dogma indeed becomes an antinomy, for the thesis that God is one cannot in any way be reconciled with the antithesis that “there are three Gods.” In the same way, that crude understanding, which grasps the union of the two natures on the model of the material union of bodies, turns the dogma of the two natures into an antinomy, because it cannot in any way imagine how it is possible for two materially conceivable natures to be unite into one and not merge.
Antinomy and antinomianism are generally rooted in the intellectual understanding of world mysteries. However, when we rise above rational understanding, this alone already resolves the antinomies; the contradictions now become a union of opposites – coincidentia oppositorum – and their resolution takes place according to the measure of our elevation.
This essentially concludes the answer to the question of the solvability of antinomies in general and religious antinomies in particular. On this question, Fr. Florensky gives a negative answer. “How cold and distant, how ungodly and hard-hearted, seems to me that time of my life when I thought the antinomies of religion solvable but not yet resolved, when in my proud folly I asserted the logical monism of religion” (p. 163) .
In this community of too sharp a formula, the book under consideration is a combination of truths and fallacies. To dream of some perfect and final resolution of all antinomies in this life is, of course, just as insane as to imagine that we can in the earthly stage of our existence be entirely free from sin. However, to affirm the final unsolvability of all antinomies, to deny the very legality of attempts to resolve them, means in our thought to submit to sin. As the fatal necessity of sin in this life does not exclude our duty to fight against it and with God’s help if possible to free ourselves from it, so the inevitability for us of antinomianism does not take away the duty that lies upon us: to strive to rise above this sinful darkness of our rational consciousness, to try to enlighten our thought by this only inherent light, in which all our earthly contradictions also fall away. To reason otherwise means to affirm flat rational thinking not only as a fact of our life, but also as a norm of what is obligatory for us.[10]
Splitness and contradiction is a factual state of our reason: it is also what constitutes the essence of reason; only that the true and authentic norm of reason is unity. It is no coincidence that even bl. Augustine saw in this search of our mind, in this aspiration of his, his formal godlikeness, a search for connection with the One and the Unconditional, because truly the One, that is God. Augustine quite rightly observes that in all the functions of our reason stands before him the ideal of unity: both in analysis and in synthesis I want unity and I love unity (unum amo et unum volo[11]). And indeed, the ideal of knowledge, realized to a greater or lesser extent in every cognitive act, consists in connecting the knowable with something that is unified and unconditional.
Here it is necessary to explain a paradoxical phenomenon that seems to contradict what has just been said, namely: when man, in the spiritual upsurge of his earthly perfection, begins to approach the Truth, then the amount of contradictions that he notices , is not reduced in the least. On the contrary, as Fr. Florensky, “… the closer we are to God, the more distinct the contradictions become. There, in upper Jerusalem, they are gone. And here – here they are in everything…”. “The more brightly shines the Truth of the Tri-Ray Light shown by Christ and reflected in the righteous, the Light in which the contradiction of this age is overcome with love and with glory, the more sharply the cracks of peace also blacken. Cracks in everything’.
Psychologically, the observations of Fr. Florensky are perfectly correct here; nevertheless, his understanding of “antinomianism” is not only not confirmed by them, but on the contrary – it is refuted. Contradictions are discovered and seem to multiply in proportion to the enlightenment of our mind, not at all because the Truth is antinomic or that it is contradictory – quite the opposite: they are laid bare in proportion to the contrast with the unity of the Truth. The nearer we are to the Truth, the more deeply we realize our sinful division, the clearer it becomes to us how far we still stand from it, and in this is the basic law of both moral and mental enlightenment. In order to realize that you have no garment to enter the marriage hall, it is necessary to see this hall at least from a distance with your mind’s eye. It is the same in the knowledge of the Truth – here, as well as in the process of moral improvement, the higher a person rises from degree to degree, the brighter the Truth, unified and all-encompassing, shines upon him, the more perfectly he realizes its own incompleteness: the inner contradiction of its reason.
To be aware of sin, however, means to take the first step towards freeing yourself from it; in the same way, to be aware of rational antinomies means already to a certain extent to rise above them and above our own rationality and take the first step towards overcoming it.
An important consideration must be added to this. Not only in the future, but also in this life of ours, there are many planes of being and, accordingly, many degrees of knowledge. And so long as the process of our improvement is not completed, so long as we ascend spiritually and mentally from degree to degree, the very antinomies of our reason do not all lie on the same plane. Ascending to the pi-higher degree, with this alone we already overcome the contradictions characteristic of the lower lying degrees; on the other hand, new tasks are revealed before us, and therefore also new contradictions, which were not visible to us while we were in the lower. Thus, for example, for the person who has outgrown that degree of understanding, at which the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are mixed with “three Gods”, the antinomy in the dogma of the Holy Trinity disappears or “takes away” by this very thing. So much more clearly, however, do other profound antinomies of our misunderstanding stand before his mental gaze, such as, for example, the antinomy of human freedom and divine predestination, or of God’s justice and all-forgiveness. Generally speaking, antinomies form a complex hierarchy of degrees and in their degrees of depth represent the multiplicity of differences. On the one hand, Kant’s antinomies remain antinomies only for undeveloped, flat reason, which seeks an unconditional basis for phenomena in the order of temporally determined causes. These antinomies are easily overcome by the independent powers of thought: as soon as it rises into the domain of that which is beyond time. On the other hand, for deep religious understanding such contradictions are discovered, the solution of which exceeds all that depth of knowledge that has hitherto been accessible to man. However, what has so far been inaccessible can become accessible to a person at a different, higher level of spiritual and intellectual ascent. The limit of this rise has not yet been pointed out, and no one should dare to point it out. Herein lies the chief objection against those who affirm the final indissolubility of antinomies.
In the opinion of Fr. Florensky’s reconciliation and unity of antinomian claims is “higher than reason” (p. 160). We could probably agree with this position, as long as it were not ambiguous, that is, as long as the concept of reason was more clearly defined, which would exclude the possibility that the word “reason” itself could be used in different senses. Unfortunately, for our author, as well as for many other adherents of these views, reason is sometimes understood as a synonym for logical thinking in general, sometimes as a thought stuck to the plane of the temporal, which is unable to rise above this plane and is therefore flat.
If we understand reasoning in the sense of the latter, then the thought of Fr. Florensky is perfectly correct; naturally the resolution of antinomies is higher than the plane of the temporal and therefore lies beyond the limits of “reason.” Moreover, in order not to fall on this plane of rational understanding, a certain act of self-denial is required of our thought—that feat of humility in which thought renounces its proud hope of drawing from itself the fullness of knowledge and is ready to accept in itself the Revelation of the superhuman, of the divine Truth.
In this sense, and only in this sense, we can agree with Fr. Florensky that “true love” is expressed “in the rejection of reason” (p. 163). Unfortunately, however, in other places in our book, this same requirement of “renunciation of reason” is received by Fr. Florenski’s other meaning, which from a Christian point of view is absolutely unacceptable.
It requires that for the sake of God we give up “the monism of thinking”, and precisely in this he perceives “the beginning of true faith” (p. 65). Here at Fr. Florensky is far from talking about some metaphysical monism – the logical monism that he rejects is precisely the aspiration of reason to bring everything to the unity of the Truth, precisely in this he sees the “diabolical pride”. According to his thought, “monistic continuity is the banner of the seditious reason of creatures, which is torn from its Origin and root and scatters in the dust of self-affirmation and self-destruction. Quite the opposite: “… dualistic discontinuity is the banner of reason, which destroys itself because of its Beginning and in union with Him receives its renewal and its fortress” (p. 65).
It is precisely in these lines that the fundamental error in the entire teaching of Fr. Florensky on antinomianism. To renounce “monism in thinking” means to renounce not the sin of our thought, but its true norm, the ideal of all-unity and all-wholeness, in other words, the very thing that constitutes the formal godlikeness of our reason; and to recognize “dualistic discontinuity” as a standard means to normalize the sinful bifurcation of our reason.
In general, the attitude of Fr. Florensky’s approach to reason can hardly be seen as something that accords with his essentially Christian worldview. This is clearly revealed when comparing it with this criterion by which St. Ap. John teaches us to distinguish the spirit of God from the spirit of deception. Both for religious life and for religious thought, the absolute norm is given to us in the image of Christ, who came in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3). Does the teaching of Fr. Florensky on the mutual relation of God’s nature and human nature in the knowledge of God?
The reconciliation of the divine and the human, which is revealed to us in the image of the God-man, is not violence against human nature. The basis of our hope lies precisely in the fact that nothing human is cut off here, except sin: the perfect God is at the same time a perfect man, and therefore the human mind also participates in this union without violating its law and norm – it is subject to transfiguration rather than mutilation.
What is an accomplished fact in Christ the God-man must become an ideal and norm for all humanity. As the union of the two natures in Christ was not forced, but free, in the same way the union of the divine principle and the human mind in the knowledge of God must be free; no violence should happen here; the law of human reason, without which it ceases to be reason, is not to be violated, but fulfilled. In the unity of Truth the human mind must find its unity. And no difference between the truth with a small letter and the Truth with a capital letter does not take away from us the responsibility to strive for this very goal: to seek the unity of truth. For this truth, which bears upon itself the stamp of our sinful division, is no truth at all, but a delusion. The monism of thinking in Christ must be justified, not condemned.
And the mistake of Fr. Florensky’s conclusion is precisely that with him the free attitude of the human mind towards the Truth is replaced by a violent one: before us he puts an alternative – or to accept the truth about the Holy Trinity, which from his point of view is antinomic, i.e. contradictory, or die in madness. To us he says: “Choose, worm and nothingness: tertium non datur[12]” (p. 66).
Christ, who wanted to see in His disciples His friends and not slaves, did not address their consciousness in this way. He who in deed revealed the trinity to them, showing, in answer to the doubts of Philip, in His own person the Heavenly Father, made this mystery intelligible to them, intelligible to the lover, because He contrasted it with the love that brings about unity in the multitude: “that they may be one, even as we are” (John 17:11). Such an appeal to human consciousness persuades, not coerces; it heals not only the heart of man, but also his mind, because in it our reason finds fulfillment of its norm of unity; in such a discovery of the trinity for our thought already here, in this life, the antinomy of unity and multiplicity is removed, its multiplicity appears not torn and not split, but united from the inside, connected.
A. Florensky may object to me that this resolution of the antinomy is beyond our reason, but there is also a dangerous ambiguity in this statement that must be removed – I repeat that, if by “reason” we understand thought, which has stuck to the temporary, then Fr. Florensky will be perfectly right, for Truth is beyond time. If, on the other hand, the meaning of the doctrine under consideration is that the resolution of the antinomy takes place only beyond human thought in general, then such a meaning is unconditionally unacceptable, since with this alone the human reason is thrown alone into the outer darkness, depriving itself of participation in the joy of universal transfiguration.
5
The question of the Christian attitude towards the human mind is inseparably connected with the question of the Christian attitude towards the representative of the mind in human society – towards the intelligentsia.
Here, too, I cannot be satisfied with the decision of Fr. Florensky. His extremely passionate, and at times cruel, judgments of the intelligentsia, of what he himself calls “graceless” and “earthly” souls, sound like a sharp dissonance in his profoundly Christian book. In the very immensity of the negation here, one feels a sore point of the considered work and of its author. As we have already seen, Fr. Florensky recalls that “godless and hard-hearted” time in his own life when he intellectually believed in the logical monism of religion. The former intellectual also feels in his fascinating descriptions of the skeptical hell he once experienced. In general, for our author, “intelligence” is an internal enemy, not an external one. In himself there is still that hateful intellectual which he himself denies; and therein lies the reason for this extremity of negation, which excludes the possibility of justice.
In places it even seems that not only the “intellectual”, but even the own human thought of Fr. For him, Florensky is an enemy that he wants to get rid of. It goes without saying that such an attitude to thought and to “intelligence” cannot be crowned with complete victory. Doubts in thought cannot be overcome by a denial of logic, by a leap into the unattainable and the unknowable; in order not to be overcome, they must be thought through. Likewise, the “intellectual” cannot be defeated by negation, but by satisfying his legitimate mental demands. The truth of Revelation must become immanent to thought; only on this condition can it triumph over irreligious thought. Then, when the content of the religious teaching insistently asserts itself as something external, beyond thought, with this itself, thought asserts itself in its state of separation and separation from religion, and thus condemns itself to cruelty. Thinking that has been expelled from the realm that is opposed to religion inevitably remains “intellectual” – in the bad sense of the word: rational, devoid of content.
The original sin of the book of Fr. Florensky concludes precisely in this her dependence on this “intelligence”, which he denies. Precisely “antinomianism” is a point of view that is too typical of the modern intellectual, and that is why it is extremely popular. There is, no more, no less, an unconquered skepticism, a split in thought, elevated to principle and norm. This is such a point of view of thought that asserts itself in its contradiction. Paradoxical as it may seem at first glance, between rationalism and “antinomianism” there is the closest kinship, more than that: an immediate logical and genetic connection. Rationalism exalts in principle the self-sufficient thought, the thought which derives the knowledge of truth from itself, while antinomianism liberates this same thought from its immanent religion and norm, from that commandment of unity which is the likeness of God in it. He proclaims to be the property of truth what in reality is the sin of reason—its inner decay. In practice, “antinomianism” is a purely rational point of view, because it affirms the contradictions of our reason as finally insoluble and invincible – more than that: it elevates them to a religious value.
At Fr. Florensky, as with a deeply religious thinker, this alogism fashionable in our time does not reach its ultimate consequences. Today, a typical representative of this direction is N. A. Berdyaev, who finally broke with the point of view of objective revelation and in the entire teaching of Fr. Florensky sympathized almost exclusively with his “antinomianism,” i.e., with his weakest.
On Fr. Florensky this sympathy should serve as a warning; it contained within itself the instruction that, raised in principle, antinomianism was fundamentally opposed to his own religious point of view. This is a dangerous deviation of thought, the natural end of which has manifested itself in Berdyaev as decadent dilettantism, giving itself the appearance of victory over prudence.
6
Decline is the inevitable fate of that thought which has lost its immanent criterion. Once freed from the logical norm of all-unity, it inevitably falls into captivity, into slavish dependence on illogical experiences: having no criterion to distinguish in these experiences the higher from the lower, the superconscious from the subconscious, such thought gives itself up uncontrollably to all the suggestions of affect, taking them as prophetic intuitions. Elevating the “irritation of captive thought” to a principle of philosophizing is also the most characteristic feature of modern decadent philosophy.
Carried to the end, this trend inevitably leads to a denial of objective revelation, to a rebellion against every religious dogma as such. And this is so for the simple reason that each dogma has its own strictly defined mental, logical composition that anchors the content of faith: in each dogma there is a precise logical formula that strictly separates the true from the untrue, the worthy of belief from delusion. This places a limit on affect in the realm of religious life and gives the believer a firm guide to distinguish truth from falsehood within subjective religious experience. These dogmatic definitions, through which the possibility of mixing the Truth with anything foreign and external to it is cut off for the believer, are often examples of logical elegance and Fr. Florensky knows this – something more: he glorifies St. Athanasius the Great, who was able to express “mathematically precisely” even in a later age the truth about the Oneness that “eluded accurate expression in intelligent minds” (p. 55).
It is understandable that for modern religious decadence, which upholds the freedom of affect against thought, such a subordination of religious feeling to rigid logical determinations is something absolutely unacceptable. Well, precisely because of his worship of the “mathematically accurate” dogmatic formulations of the Church, Fr. Florensky was subjected to fierce attacks by Berdyaev.[13] Undoubtedly, the valuable aspect of the latter’s objections lies in the fact that these objections put Fr. Florensky faced the need to more sharply distinguish himself from this decadence of alogism, a typical representative of which in religious philosophy is N. A. Berdyaev.
Source in Russian: Trubetskoy, E. N. “Svet Favorsky and the transformation of the mind” – In: Russkaya mysl, 5, 1914, pp. 25-54; the basis of the text is a report read by the author before a meeting of the Russian Religious and Philosophical Society on February 26, 1914.
Notes:
[9] This opponent of mine, who has noticed “Hegelianism” in these words, has apparently forgotten Hegel. It is Hegel who teaches that all our thinking moves in contradictions. From his point of view, the dogma of the Holy Trinity is also contradictory or “antinomic”. While I maintain that there is no contradiction in it.
[10] It is worth noting that even Fr. Florensky, faced with the antinomy of divine justice and mercy, does not remain at the apparent contradiction of thesis and antithesis, but tries to give it a solution.
[11] Cf. my essay: Религиозно-общественный идеал западного христианства в V веке. Миросозерцание бл. Августина, M. 1892, pp. 56-57.
[12] From Latin: “third not given”.
[13] Berdyaev, N. A. “Stylized Orthodoxy” – In: Russkaya mysl, January, 1914, pp. 109-126.
